Skip to comments.Bachmann sittin' on the fence
Posted on 02/10/2011 10:37:00 AM PST by pissant
Michele Bachmann, who is speaking on Thursday at CPAC, says she's still on the fence about whether she'll run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.
"I haven't made a decision one way or another," the Minnesota congresswoman said on Fox News. "Right now, what I'm trying to do is make sure we continue the national dialogue on the issues that are important to us. Certainly we will be discussing the identity of who our nominee will be but that can't dominate the next two years of the election cycle." Continue Reading
Bachmann largely spiked a question about former President Bill Clinton's comments that Bachmann was operating in "a parallel universe divorced from reality."
"I think the fact is the American people have overwhelmingly rejected the government takeover of health care," she said. "I think what this shows is incredible defensiveness on the part of not only the former president but current Democrat office holders who don't want to listen to what people are trying to tell them."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
That must hurt.
Depends on the fence. Maybe it feels good.
Might depend on the sitter too.
Pissy’s got “Bachmann” fever BAD!
Maybe she’s sitting on Mike Pence, and that’s why he’s gonna go for Indiana governor instead? ;)
I’m a big fan of Michelle’s grasp of the issues, both domestic and foreign. I believe she truly understands Conservatism and comes down on the right sight far more often than some others I could mention.
That being said, I’m not convinced she has the experience necessary to become president. I’m open to the views of others on the subject. Most important to me is whether a person truly gets it or not. And the “IT” is what Conservatism truly is, and that it is worth pushing for full speed ahead.
We have some people who don’t grasp immigration. They don’t grasp globalism. They don’t quite understand who John McCain is, and why his policies would destroy this nation as surely as Obama’s would.
If a person truly gets it, I’d probably be willing to trade experience for them being truly grounded.
If Michelle were the candidate, she’d get my support in a heartbeat.
I think a Palin ~ Bachman would be just peachy !
I hear you. I’d love for someone who possesses the conservative backbone and consistency and fearlessness of a Bachmann or Hunter or a DeMint, who understands the key issues of sovereignty & constitutionalism, and who has a proven track record of backhanding the liberal critics, to be in the race that had 10 years as a general or 2 terms as a gubner, or somesuch.
But look at the fools who are/were governors who are considering running. A veritable smorgasbord of limp wristed RINOs, amnesty queens, and careerists.
Probably addressing a room full of fudge packers would not be the best venue for her to announce her candidacy.
Maybe she should try to accomplish something in her present key position first.
She should reply that Bubba operates in a parallel universe divorced from Truth.
Bachmann can assume the role Sarah Palin once held before she decided to go pro-homo.
If Bachmann gets the GOP nomination, and I don’t think she ever will, I’ll support her.
But I sincerely hope she is not the choice.
I just listened to her CPAC speech. It was one of the best speeches I’ve heard in a while.
She’s throwing a party and picking up the bar tab. Love that.
Please “Pro homo”...
allowing that a group, any group, can go to the cpac, which is nothing but RINO anyway. Is not pro homo.
Supporting gay marriage is pro homo.
But let me guess, you aren’t a Palin supporter to start with.
Funny I don’t know any Palin supports that aren’t Bachmann supporters. Palin/Bachmann is the dream ticket.
But Pissant loves Bachmann and hates Palin. Of course Pissant makes his living hating candidates that are not his own. But Bachmann and Palin or two sides of the same coin.
both are made of solid gold.
I'd much rather have someone that has a clear set of priciples and will follow them.
I like Bachmann, but as I've said before she has a huge skeleton in her closet: she attended Oral Roberts University.
Oral Roberts was a very controversial preacher. And I'm not just talking about to secular non-believers. The brand of Christianity he preached (prosperity gospel/seed-faith) is outside of mainstream Christianity (including evangelical Christiantiy).
From the following link: http://godwordistruth.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/prosperity-gospel-the-tragic-legacy-of-oral-roberts-seed-faith-perversion/
Prosperity Gospel: The Tragic Legacy of Oral Roberts Seed-Faith Perversion
Pastor John MacArthur wrote an excellent review Measuring Oral Roberts Influence commenting on the published obituaries following the passing of Oral Roberts on 15 Dec 2009. Pastor JM clearly set the straight facts on Oral Roberts infamous contribution to developing the tragic legacy of Seed-Faith perversion of the Gospel:
Tragically, the Seed-Faith message usurped and utterly replaced whatever gospel content there ever may have been in Oral Roberts preaching. In all the many times I saw him on television I never once heard him preach the gospel. His messageevery timewas about Seed-Faith. The reason for that is obvious: the message of the crossan atoning sacrifice for sins wrought through Jesus sufferingsfrankly doesnt mesh very well with the notion that God guarantees health, wealth, and prosperity to the righteous. Our fellowship in Jesus sufferings (Philippians 3:10), and our duty to follow in His steps (1 Peter 2:20-23), are likewise antithetical to the core principles of prosperity doctrine. The prosperity message is a different gospel (cf. Galatians 1:8-9).
One thing all the obituaries agree on is that Oral Roberts paved the way for all the charismatic televangelists and faith-healers who dominate religious television today. He did more than anyone in the early Pentecostal movement to influence mainstream evangelicalism. He parlayed his television ministry into a vast empire that has left a deep mark on the church worldwide. In many places today, including some of the worlds most illiterate and poverty-stricken regions, Oral Roberts Seed-Faith concept is actually better known than the doctrine of justification by faith. The message of prosperity is now the message multitudes think of when they hear the word gospel. Countless confused people worldwide think of the gospel as a message about earthly, temporal, and material riches rather than the infinitely greater blessings of forgiveness from sin and the eternal blessing of the believers spiritual union with Christ.
There have been real debates over how evangelicals would react if a Morman was nominated. What would happen if someone was nominated that was a follower of Oral Roberts? You're going to have some pretty serious religious debates (something we don't need to get sidetracked with right now). I expect a serious percentage of Christians would be turned off by the Oral Roberts connection enough to say no.
I fell in luv then and there ;-)
I posted the entire text of the “Measuring Oral Roberts’ Influence” article here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2671690/posts
Anyone that is supporting Bachmann is going to have to deal with the Bachmann/Oral Roberts connection.
Isn’t that the truth...
Why do you say that BunnySlippers?
We could do a lot worse.
I don’t have any argument with the premise that causes you to come to the conclusion you have. I was raised in Joplin, Missouri, and I remember Roberts.
While I wasn’t an adherent by any stretch of the imagination, I watched enough of his presentations to come to the conclusion he was a fraud (IMO).
His constant calls for more money, and his phony healing sessions (again at least IMO), caused me to see him in a very negative light. Old women patrons of my grandmother’s nursing home would send him off checks. It didn’t sit well with me that they were hoodwinked into doing so.
For what it’s worth, my step-father was an ambulance driver. He stated that he more than once picked up people who WERE NOT healed in Robert’s sessions, and when he did they were beyond the point of any rescue on this earth.
Okay, we probably agree on this much. As for his message, I don’t disagree with you.
Now, does that mean that every kid who chose Oral Roberts University should be a political untouchable? Does it mean that vast numbers would refuse to vote for them?
I may be wrong, but I don’t thing that’s true. It’s certainly a point thinking people can disagree on, but I’m not convinced that she would be untouchable.
Look, if folks will vote for a guy who sat there and listened to Jeramiah Wright for twenty years, I think they can vote for someone who is a good person, and may have made a poor choice for graduate school earlier in their life.
What would be most important to me, is that they had a firm grip on what dangers face this nation
Look, we’ve had excellent practicing Christians who have been disasters as president. Jimmy Carter comes to mind. I’m not convinced individual personal doctrinal dogma is transferred to the nation by one of these individuals.
I don’t think Bachmann would be a threat of sorts if she was elected. I see it as just the reverse.
I appreciate your comments. I’m not seeking to discredit your thoughts, because I can understand why you voiced them. In the end, I’m not convinced the negative aspects you touched on would pan out.
One thing I think we can agree on is that there is a double standard on how the press reports on Democrats and Republicans (particularly conservative Republicans).
They downplayed Obama & Wright (ignored might be a better word). I have no doubt they would do just the opposite when it comes to Bachmann & Oral Roberts. Not only would they focus on it, they would beat it like a drum.
Fair? No, but that’s the world we live in.
The other thing I think we can agree on is that consrvatives hold themselves to a higher standard than liberals do.
Liberals glady ignored any questions about Wright, because that’s just what they do—brush everything under the carpet and say “move along, nothing to see here.”
I don’t see conservatives doing that. They’ll examine the Oral Roberts connection to see if there is anything here.
Again, fair? No, but that’s just the way it is.
I don’t think this makes Bachmann untouchable (any more than Romney being a Morman makes him untouchable), but it’s part of the overall picture of Bachmann that people will build.
Completely irrelevant to this thread but the title reminded me of a little ditty we sang as third graders. Our teacher's name was Miss Spence and was probably about 30 years old.
Old lady Spence
sittin' on a fence
Tryin' to make a dollar outta fifteen cents.
We didn't chant it to her face of course and I know it's stupid, what do you expect out of third graders?
I agree with quite a bit of that. Let me ask you this.
Think about this for a moment, then read on. Why would you refrain from voting for Romney? Would it be Mormon related, or policy related?
For me, it would definitely be policy related. I don’t agree with Mormon beliefs, but I don’t consider them to be bad people per se. I think my valuables, wife, and kids would be safe in their company.
I don’t agree with Romney’s stances, and that’s all. I do agree with Bachmann’s, and that’s all.
Is your stance on Romney different than mine?
You mean like when she signed legislation giving benefits to partners of homosexual state employees? Or when she appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court?
Supporting homosexual activists that are pro-homo and in favor of gay marriage infiltrating the conservative movement is pro-homo in and of itself.
So, are vetoing laws that ban partners of homosexuals from receiving state benefits like she did in Alaska.
Tell me where Palin was when DADT was being repealed while Bachmann was fight against it.
Romney is a no go simply on his political record.
But I’ll be perfectly blunt, his religious beliefs would give me pause, simple because (imho) Mormanism doesn’t pass the “reasonable man” test—if you laid out all the evidence (for and against) would a reasonable person be able to the come to the conclusion that a religious belief is true?
There are a number of religions that pass that test. And I don’t just mean western religions. I’m talking Eastern religions too.
But Mormanism doesn’t. There are too many problems with it. A person couldn’t honestly examine all the evidence and come away with the opinion that Mormanism was the real thing unless: (1) they glossed over or ignored some of the evidence, or (2) had poor judgement skills.
A president with religious beliefs I don’t agree with (including being say a Hindu)? I can handle that; it wouldn’t be a problem. A president with poor judgement skills; that’s a problem.
You could say that same thing about Bachmann too. Only in her instance, her political beliefs are tried and true.
Romney’s policies on the other hand, are unsupportable by Conservatives. Your test seems to ring true with him, but the test seems to fail on her.
I remain unconvinced that Bachmann is a loyalist to the Robert’s mantra. I’ve known a lot of high school and college kids who went to parochial schools. The idea each one of them graduated with a die-hard devotion to the focused dogma is a very flawed perception.
You don’t know that Bachmann bought the Robertson dogma hook line and sinker. Here clear-headed thinking I’ve seen certainly wouldn’t lead me to think she was a fuzzy thinker at all.
Is she a person Republicans and Independents could support? I am convinced of it.
Look, this is a bell-ringer election. Obama is vulnerable. The last thing I want to do is replace him with some RINO clown.
Bachmann is the real thing. She gets it. We would be very lucky to have her.
Bachmann needs to go into overdrive!
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds does it?
She was pro-homo because she openly said GOProud should be welcome at CPAC. Bachmann endorsed GOProud being at the event.
Bachmann was out fighting against DADT while Palin was tweeting messages in favor of repealing it.